Definition of the features of modernism from the WP:
Empiricism: the belief that sensory experience is the only trustworthy basis
for confirming knowledge about the external world. The foundation of
experimental scientific method, its chief exponents in the 17th and 18th
centuries were John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume.Scientific Materialism: the related view that nothing exists except physical
matter, subject to particular laws of physics (as opposed to e.g. divine nature).Reductionism(/atomism): the view that in this purely physical world, all
phenomena can be properly explained as the sum interaction of simpler
phenomena, and that the smallest parts are the fundamental units of reality.Mechanistic view: as innovation in mechanics spread (and arguably since
the clock was invented) a root metaphor of nature-as-machine supplanted
metaphors like nature-as-nurturing-parent in the public imaginary. A
corresponding view of creator god as the âdivine clockmakerâ allowed religious
belief to co-exist with the mechanistic view.Newtonian mechanics: (functional but partial) early mathematical laws of
physics explaining motion of material objectsDarwinian evolution: the idea that species change over time, give rise to
new species through natural selection, and share a common ancestor.Objective truth: the view that in our absolute, physical world, there is truth
about the way things are, independent of human perception. An objective,
constant, external universe
If we are talking about a period of time then something very large is missing from this list. That thing is idealism. Clearly the group of people who assembled this list did not think idealism belonged on it.
From my perspective, it absolutely belongs on it, and its absence reveals bias. I think materialism and idealism, as understood in a modernist Western perspective (not eastern philosophy) are both part of the dualistic system we need to get rid of. Each of them is one half of Descartesâ dualism with the other crudely chopped off. Rejecting one of them while failing to even mention the other (so you donât reject it, but you donât explain why it hasnât been rejected either) will be noticed by âthe other sideâ (ie analytical philosophers, skeptics, rationalists, naturalists).
There is a very simple way to move beyond this problem. Itâs called neutral monism. The people trying to build the bridge from other side have already proposed neutral monism as the only sensible way forwards, precisely because it offers a genuinely new and neutral start. Why not meet them half way and build the foundations of a new movement together?
I think the âcorrectâ position for 2R to take is that reality is not made of matter, nor mind, nor both. All of that is a hangover from modernism. I think we need to view reality as being made of information or structures (and the relationships between structures). We do need a sort of dualism, but it needs to be a Yin/Yang sort of dualism not a mind/matter dualism. That will need a lot of unpacking, but I believe the underlying physics and philosophy is available.